Cosmologists Are Lost In the Dark

Ever since two rescue theories such as dark matter and dark energy were proposed and have been studied many times over using some of the most advanced and expensive equipment known to man has yet to lead to any sort of breakthrough. Many articles have been appearing lately in the last few months about their “lack” of knowledge and their inability to directly detect it.

Here are just a few of them…

The search for dark matter

“What we do know about dark matter comes from the ways it’s influenced the universe nearly as far back as the Big Bang. Like paw prints left by an elusive animal, the cosmos is full of signs of dark matter’s existence, but we haven’t actually seen the creature itself.”

“So far, not a single experiment has yielded a definitive trace of dark matter.”

Dark Matter Just Got Murkier

“We have never directly observed dark matter, but we know a great deal about what it must be: It must be massive (because it affects the rotation of galaxies); it must be electrically neutral (because we can’t see it); it must be different from ordinary matter (because we see no evidence for it interacting with matter in the usual ways); and it must be stable (because it has existed since the dawn of the universe). These properties are unequivocal.”

“However, we don’t know exactly what it is.”

The dark universe

“The existence of dark matter has been inferred from the motion of stars since the 1930s, but its nature remains a mystery. The dark-matter particle posited by the most popular theory has not been shown to exist — if it is to make an appearance, it may be now or never. The search is narrowing and the possibilities are dwindling; physicists may soon have to move on to alternative explanations”

“Explaining dark energy is even tougher. The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe in 1998 called for a driving force that opposes the pull of gravity (S205). At the heart of attempts to characterize this energy is a deceptively simple question: is dark energy constant? Finding out will require looking back in time, to the birth of the Universe” 

Something is wrong with dark matter

“The LUX measurement is simply the most recent and most powerful of a long line of searches for dark matter. They found no evidence for the existence of dark matter and were able to rule out a significant range of possible WIMP properties and masses.”

Dark Matter and The Big Bang

This may surprise some but it wasn’t proposed by an atheist nor an agnostic, nor some sort of special interest group but rather a Belgian Jesuit priest living in the 1920s, who was an astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first to propose the expansion of the universe. A couple of years later it was Edwin Hubble who declared the expansion of the universe which was predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity, and general relativity, more than a decade earlier. However, this caused a problem for those who believed the universe was eternal which including Einstein. So he did was like what most evolutionists do in this situation when observational data conflict with their theory, Einstein came up with a rescue hypothesis ( cosmological constant ) in order to keep the universe eternal.

But the rescue hypothesis didn’t hold up instead evolutionists began to propose “constant density” whereby increases in the matter just pops into existence spontaneously. Eventually, it changed in 1965 with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a low-level, nearly uniform radiation permeating the universe from all directions.

The Big Bang Theory took hold and replaced the old theory in the mid 60’s after the discovery of CMB despite opposition from those like  Fred Hoyle who said…

“[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation.”

Changing The Big Bang Theory Back To Eternal

The reason for the opposition much like Einstein was the fact that the Big Bang Theory gave the universe a beginning and when you have a beginning, you require a cause for that beginning to happen whereas eternal, there is no such cause required because it’s always there and things can evolve from it. This type of explanation for how the universe evolved are much easier to create a storyline when the tools and material are already created into existence. For example, Stephen Hawking came up with the idea of universal quantum singularity, where there was no origin in time which makes it basically eternal. He described our universe having many different histories (multi-universes) and we are supposedly just some of them! Unlike in Creationism where there was a beginning and will be an end, this is called, “finite”.

By no means does these newer theories solve anything as far as the Big Bang goes…Major questions remain and are just a few of them…

  1. How did nature choose the specific laws which control the universe, as deduced from observation?”
  2. How did the universe start off with an initial state in such a high degree of homogeneity?”
  3. Why, after 13.8 billion years since the big bang, is not the universe in thermal equilibrium?”

 

What about Dark Energy?

Dark energy was invented because the universe was moving apart faster than astronomers had predicted, and dark energy was created in order to explain the mystery. This is very common in theories pertaining to its supposed evolution. When observational data doesn’t match up with their beliefs, they involve new things to solve problems in their story but that doesn’t make it factual in fact it opens up more complexity as we shall see in a moment.

In Conclusion

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed despite all the new technology—inflation, dark matter, and dark energy which is what holds the whole theory together because without them there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

For instance, In 1978, Princeton physicist Bob Dicke along with other scientists noticed the universe is finely tuned, “too perfect” in their opinion for something to have been created by random natural causes. A little bit too much, the universe tears itself apart, a little bit too less of an expansion and the whole universe collapses. It had to be finely precise without a reason to do so. Sounds complicated? Indeed! One of the things I have always stressed in this blog when a theory becomes more and more complex, it is usually an indicator that the theory is not based on reality.

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Romans 1:21 KJV

Cosmology guru Alan Guth eventually invented the hypothesis known as “inflation” however, he was unable to figure out how to stop it once it got started. Over time others joined in and came up with ideas of their own. What seemed to be the greatest problem-solving idea which kept the Big Bang Theory alive was falsified a year later when it failed to produce a smooth universe. This was not the end for inflation rather it required a rescue device to save it. So inflation which is needed to keep the Big Bang alive needed saving itself. Otherwise, as Guth knew but despised, the evidence does in fact point to an intelligent designer namely God :)

Dispelling Common Myths About The Scientific Method

Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, once said: “There are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

On the other hand, some fundamental atheists claim that those who believed there is no God were the ones who replaced Christianity or religion with the scientific experimental method while coming out of the middle ages.

In the Alchemy era has been attacked viciously for its hypothesis of turning base metals into gold or silver. In some recent articles, it corrects a basic myth. This is not to say, the hypothesis is a valid one which should be used today but rather for their time, they were pursuing real scientific questions with the limited information available to them.

In a nature blog

“The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed.  Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus.  For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway.  Popes haven’t tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley’s Comet.  No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas.  Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress.”

The nature blog is a bit confused with history especially using the word the “church”, while its true most advancements in science were not a threat to Catholicism, it doesn’t represent Christianity as a whole nor the Bible. The threat was true believers in particular and her daughters who broke away during the reformation. Catholicism during the middle ages was a very powerful political force during that time using governments to put people to death if they rejected the sacraments as a means to get to heaven.

Also,  Catholicism was able to put to death people who were just interpreting the Bible or translating then making various printings for common people in the English language for it was against government law to interpret the Bible. Only Catholicism could make decisions on which languages the Bible could be translated, and distribution and who could do the interpreting. In this case only the clergy. Some of her protestant daughters had a similar problems even though they broke from the Pope being their leader. The conduct of both Catholicism and some of her daughters displayed were not sanction by the Bible and therefore not part of Christianity. So the nature blog was wrong for using, the “church” as representing the whole of Christianity.

But the blog is right about the flat earth belief myth, Catholicism nor true believers who are protestants or not actually believed nor taught that the earth was flat. This generally comes from certain atheists who try to interpret the Bible that way. One sees it often times referred to in certain so-called science blogs or certain atheist blogs when criticizing skeptics of evolution.

After dispelling some of the myths, the writer goes on to give positive cases of the “church” or a particular religion supporting science.

“It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications.  Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs.  Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety.  Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature.  To study the natural world was to admire the work of God.” 

“This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it.  It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe [sic] away.”

Hannam said that both “science and religion are the two most powerful intellectual forces on the planet,” and gives the Alchemy era its due, he then attacks creationism by blaming them for “persuading the public that Christianity and science are doomed to perpetual antagonism” as though he is mistakenly protecting the likes of the Dawkins crowd! He might as well blame the Christians in the Roman arena being attacked by wild animals and crucified for causing the “ongoing clash” with Nero.

Just like Catholicism mainly focused on those who didn’t believe or practice the sacraments and was able to put to death countless people who believed in God during the middle ages, the focus of their most hated group in the academia world today are the creationists.  Alchemists get more respect than people who take God’s word as a historical account of origins, even though the great scientists Hannam listed, including Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and Maxwell all believed it.  Why would many in the academia world today hate what creationists stand for? Because it’s the truth!